We’ve been talking about “Aurelia vNext” for a little while now. Development is progressing well and we’re hoping to have an alpha for early adopters and adventurous folk soon. However, we can’t go on calling it “Aurelia vNext” for much longer. The time has come to pick an official name and we’d like to let our community come up with a few options.
Feel free to post name recommendations in this thread (along with an optional explanation or justification). We’ll then gather those up and create a survey so that everyone can vote. The survey results will then serve as an input for the Aurelia Core Team, to help us select an official name for Aurelia vNext. (Note: There are several inputs to the naming process and many considerations. So, it’s possible that we may not be able to choose anything from the survey in the end. We sure hope we can though.)
Here are a few names to get us started:
Aurelia 2
Aurelia S
Aurelia X
Aurelia Omega
Please note that we want to keep “Aurelia” as the core of the name (this isn’t a new framework after all). We’re currently thinking that we just need a nice suffix like “2”, “X”, etc.
I’d strongly suggest not to use any additional names besides Aurelia. What would be the added value? And what about the next next version? Simply naming them 1, 2, 3… makes sense and its clear from the get-go what to expect.
So my comments on the given suggestions:
Aurelia 2: Future proof, anyone can understand its meaning. Today, and 5 years from now.
Aurelia S: When is Aurelia T coming out?
Aurelia X: This product is never going to be finished…
Aurelia Omega: They finished it??!!
(Warning: The below is merely a rant)
I have no marketing background, however, I’ve been active for 15 years in our industry and from my experience, our landscape is a mess. There are thousands of products out there with names that shed no clue on what problem the product actually tries to solves (including Aurelia). Lets not make this situation more complicated than it needs to be. If I was new to Aurelia and I was to read an article and it talks about Aurelia Omega, now I have to go out of my way to look up what Omega stands for. It sounds like a merger of 2 products so do I now have to learn 2 products?
EDIT
Just to clarify, I assumed that Aurelia vNext is going to be an evolutionary step from Aurelia vCurrent and not be itself from a completely different species (as those A******* guys did).
@Sjaak Thanks for the feedback. Lots of good points there.
We were initially thinking to just go with “Aurelia 2” but we didn’t have complete agreement on the team, so we wanted to get some feedback from the community.
To your final point/question, this is an evolutionary step. We’re not building a new framework. It’s the same templating languages, same binding language, same DI, component model/lifecycle, etc. There are breaking changes, but most of them are find/replaceable. This isn’t the same as what the other A* guys did For existing Aurelia devs, there will be very little new to learn, and a straight-forward migration path (if you want to migrate). With vNext, you’ll just get something faster, more stable and better tested, backed by better devops, with new features, improved low-level APIs, even more extensibility, improved tooling and integrations, etc. It’s a better Aurelia, not something different.
I would vote to just keep it simple with “Aurelia 2”. In an ecosystem that has confusing names that keep on changing, keeping a simple no-nonsense name, to me, sends a signal that we are a sane, predictable framework that you should be building upon.
Please don’t use ambiguous code-names. We’re professional developers, not children. Just Aurelia 2 is great. I think versioning clarity will inspire people to use the framework a lot more than some “catchy” nickname.
I don’t know about you man but my inner child would’ve called this one “Aurelia Furion XXXHighVoltageXXX69”. I prefer to keep it suppressed in my professional exploits.
I think Aurelia 2 is still probably the best as well.
But wait, giving a codename to a version number is still great and makes for a great blog post title, take for example WebPack 4 - codename Legato.
Some of you might remember what happened when Microsoft decided to name Surface Pro 5 just… Surface Pro… eee what, why, wtf??? Customers where so confused, they went back to numbers on the following iteration lol. Which makes me remember when Angular skipped a version number… thats another story though.
While Aurelia 2 sounds like the best option it could irrationally resonate with Ng1 -> Ng2 upgrade which was massive. Why not keep calling current code just Aurelia and use versions when referring to legacy code?
For existing Aurelia devs, there will be very little new to learn, and a straight-forward migration path (if you want to migrate). With vNext, you’ll just get something faster, more stable and better tested, backed by better devops, with new features, improved low-level APIs, even more extensibility, improved tooling and integrations, etc. It’s a better Aurelia, not something different.
Why does it have to be one or the other? If I hadn’t embraced my inner child, this industry would’ve driven me crazy decades ago…!